zos - Please start charging a monthly sub...

GaldorP · March 2016

I don't think returning to a mandatory subscription model is a realistic option for ZOS right now.

Think about all the people who bought DLCs for crowns (who spent real money to buy them) to get permanent access to those DLCs. Many would probably be pretty upset if they suddenly had to pay a subscription to play the game again and have access to the DLCs they bought. Also, that would mean that subscribers suddenly wouldn't have access to DLCs anymore. That or those who bought the DLCs completely wasted all those crowns they spent on DLCs if the mandatory subscription grants access to the DLCs anyway.

Also, this change wouldn't fix the server issues in Cyrodiil (those existed before the game went B2P). I guess the idea is that ZOS would generate more income with a mandatory subscription so they would have more resources to fix performance problems with the server and the game client, but I don't think that's what would actually happen (they could very likely suddenly have less income).

On a side note: Server performance/connection in PvE is pretty good for me (have never played another MMOG that had fewer connection problems; talking only about PvE here).

Haven't seen a single bot in probably over a year. No RMT spam in chat, no spam mails, nothing (that's on PC EU server) which is exceptional for a B2P MMOG.

The only client-side issues I have in PvE are loading times in Wrothgar and Hew's Bane are a bit long (I assume that's because of the number of other players in the zone; sudden loading screens can occur throughout those two zones, textures can't load fast enough), large groups for world boss dailies in Wrothgar can cause performance problems. Group dungeons and trials can sometimes cause client performance issues as well. Apart from that, the game runs fine on medium settings for me (recently noticed though that client performance in Cadwell's Silver and Gold zones, in general, is a lot better than it is in Wrothgar or Hew's Bane).

xxxdcxxx · March 2016

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

Thornen · March 2016

Reason they swapped to a b2p model was because sub based was not making enough profit... If you think throwing any amount of money at zos will actually make them less incompetent or actually do QA bloody testing then you need a psych evaluation.

swirve · March 2016

Lysette wrote: »

swirve wrote: »

Not in all cases, but some players could use the sub fee to uprade from dial up.

Maybe they should implement stricter controls on connection quality, but then all the poor connection players would complain.

Maybe they could have a sub 100ms campaign and limit say non europeans accessing eu server etc...

Very social of you to just cut us off the servers - thank you - just get lost.

Lol kid.

It is practical, having 800+ms players in with 50ms just makes it harder for the game to provide a smooth experience. The only people who object tend to be the self centered, global players or those in crapholes in regards to internet.

Coming from proper low ping pvp games having no controls makes the game a mess.

Some of you expect ZOS to solve the problems you create. Entitled.

If my connection was poor at time and i wanted to play socially id acept a reduced experience happily. I.e if i want to play with americans and asiapac players at the same time.

People like you dont want players to have choices if it impacts your experience.

Tandor · March 2016

Skullz11c wrote: »

davidtxr wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree with OP I choose to pay the sub if I was forced to I would drop the game

And there are certainly others out there who would agree with you, but I would venture to say, you would be the minority. Historically speaking, MMO players have had no issue paying a monthly subscription. Honestly, the complexity of a good MMO and strain it puts on DEVs almost requires a pay to play model. If you do not have the money to support software development and support the game will slowly die. This is happening to ESO. Month after month, DLC after DLC, the game performance gets worse.

I'm afraid the evidence is against you on this. MMO developers didn't suddenly wake up one morning and think what a good wheeze it would be to drop subscriptions. They did their projections and worked out that such a change would be good for the overall viability of their games, and so it appears to have been with ESO which is reportedly in a much healthier financial position today than it was before they made the change. Many of the MMOs that started with subscriptions have had to switch their business model and they mostly did so in order to stay afloat. The likelihood of any of them reverting to a subscription-only model is next to zero.

Meanwhile, anyone who objects to the switch in business model is free to continue paying a subscription and avoid the crown store altogether as the only essential items are included within the subscription anyway. I run two accounts, one with a subscription and one without, and I don't notice any difference in the way the game plays either between the accounts or between now and before the change to B2P. In particular, the game has not gone P2W which was the biggest concern when the change was announced.

Nor did ZOS go back on their word, break any promises, or lie over this, they simply stated their genuine intentions at the time without giving any indication that things were set in stone unlike say Camelot Unchained where there is an absolute undertaking that the subscription-only business model will never change. All projects evolve over time and what makes good sense in the beginning doesn't necessarily apply later on down the road. Good luck to anyone who thinks they can get through life without having to react to changing circumstances and change their mind on anything. The way the market evolves one can be pretty certain that most developers who launch a new title with a subscription will have the makings of a cash shop system embedded in the game's design to enable a switch later on if required.

Lysette · March 2016

xxxdcxxx wrote: »

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

Oh my, you have no idea how this is handled - do you really think they would have had to pay a million dollar for this. 20 years are a long time, they did not even have to pay half of that in order to achieve a payout plan of 20x 50k US$. And what is half a million dollars?- if you'd have like 100 people staff, this is what you'd have to pay for this staff every month including those costs, which are not part of the actual salary payment. So this is not a huge amount of money for a company, especially not in the PR sector.

swirve · March 2016

Lysette wrote: »

xxxdcxxx wrote: »

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

Oh my, you have no idea how this is handled - do you really think they would have had to pay a million dollar for this. 20 years are a long time, they did not even have to pay half of that in order to achieve a payout plan of 20x 50k US$. And what is half a million dollars?- if you'd have like 100 people staff, this is what you'd have to pay for this staff every month including those costs, which are not part of the actual salary payment. So this is not a huge amount of money for a company, especially not in the PR sector.

Good reply on the cost point a 50$k a year extra wont fix the problem. so many idiots parrot fix the servers, without having a clue about server infrastucture or even their own impact on the game. I.e players with crap connection somehow magically expecting ZOS to fix their experience with buy more servers...

You want better expetiene then prepare for the consequences, region locking, tiered connection matching, less players in instance...etc...

Lysette · March 2016

swirve wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

xxxdcxxx wrote: »

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

Oh my, you have no idea how this is handled - do you really think they would have had to pay a million dollar for this. 20 years are a long time, they did not even have to pay half of that in order to achieve a payout plan of 20x 50k US$. And what is half a million dollars?- if you'd have like 100 people staff, this is what you'd have to pay for this staff every month including those costs, which are not part of the actual salary payment. So this is not a huge amount of money for a company, especially not in the PR sector.

Good reply on the cost point a 50$k a year extra wont fix the problem. so many idiots parrot fix the servers, without having a clue about server infrastucture or even their own impact on the game. I.e players with crap connection somehow magically expecting ZOS to fix their experience with buy more servers...

You want better expetiene then prepare for the consequences, region locking, tiered connection matching, less players in instance...etc...

Nah, that is as well not how this is done - they do not pay 50k/year - but they pay a 3rd party company to provide the payment plan and pay for this a reduce amount all at once - but this money will earn during those 20 years and that is why they have to pay much less than half a million to achieve a payout plan of 1 Million dollars over the course of 20 years.

Danikat · March 2016

From what I remember of the forums during the first year having a subscription didn't guarantee no bugs and a flawless connection. I was seeing all the same complaints as we get now, and ZOS was responding with things like removing torchbugs from Cyrodiil to reduce lag.

Edit: In fact you can see for yourself. Go to the PC technical support section and have a look at the old posts, then compare them to newer ones.

Lysette · March 2016

Tandor wrote: »

Skullz11c wrote: »

davidtxr wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree with OP I choose to pay the sub if I was forced to I would drop the game

And there are certainly others out there who would agree with you, but I would venture to say, you would be the minority. Historically speaking, MMO players have had no issue paying a monthly subscription. Honestly, the complexity of a good MMO and strain it puts on DEVs almost requires a pay to play model. If you do not have the money to support software development and support the game will slowly die. This is happening to ESO. Month after month, DLC after DLC, the game performance gets worse.

I'm afraid the evidence is against you on this. MMO developers didn't suddenly wake up one morning and think what a good wheeze it would be to drop subscriptions. They did their projections and worked out that such a change would be good for the overall viability of their games, and so it appears to have been with ESO which is reportedly in a much healthier financial position today than it was before they made the change. Many of the MMOs that started with subscriptions have had to switch their business model and they mostly did so in order to stay afloat. The likelihood of any of them reverting to a subscription-only model is next to zero.

Meanwhile, anyone who objects to the switch in business model is free to continue paying a subscription and avoid the crown store altogether as the only essential items are included within the subscription anyway. I run two accounts, one with a subscription and one without, and I don't notice any difference in the way the game plays either between the accounts or between now and before the change to B2P. In particular, the game has not gone P2W which was the biggest concern when the change was announced.

Nor did ZOS go back on their word, break any promises, or lie over this, they simply stated their genuine intentions at the time without giving any indication that things were set in stone unlike say Camelot Unchained where there is an absolute undertaking that the subscription-only business model will never change. All projects evolve over time and what makes good sense in the beginning doesn't necessarily apply later on down the road. Good luck to anyone who thinks they can get through life without having to react to changing circumstances and change their mind on anything. The way the market evolves one can be pretty certain that most developers who launch a new title with a subscription will have the makings of a cash shop system embedded in the game's design to enable a switch later on if required.

Indeed, life is change and who does not want to adapt to changing conditions will not stay long in the market. This is not just for companies that way, but as well for employees - who is not adapting to new conditions will just have no decent job or even stay unemployed. That is just how life is, to deny this does not help a bit.

magnusthorek · March 2016

I have just one thing to say about your idea "[Snip] IT". I waited until this [Snip] of paid access to be removed to follow the "normal" concept of the MMOs nowadays and since then I already paid more than 300 bucks (after exchange rates between currencies) in this game to have my access denied because I can't, physically and financially agree with that

[Edited for Profanity Masking]

swirve · March 2016

Lysette wrote: »

swirve wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

xxxdcxxx wrote: »

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

Oh my, you have no idea how this is handled - do you really think they would have had to pay a million dollar for this. 20 years are a long time, they did not even have to pay half of that in order to achieve a payout plan of 20x 50k US$. And what is half a million dollars?- if you'd have like 100 people staff, this is what you'd have to pay for this staff every month including those costs, which are not part of the actual salary payment. So this is not a huge amount of money for a company, especially not in the PR sector.

Good reply on the cost point a 50$k a year extra wont fix the problem. so many idiots parrot fix the servers, without having a clue about server infrastucture or even their own impact on the game. I.e players with crap connection somehow magically expecting ZOS to fix their experience with buy more servers...

You want better expetiene then prepare for the consequences, region locking, tiered connection matching, less players in instance...etc...

Nah, that is as well not how this is done - they do not pay 50k/year - but they pay a 3rd party company to provide the payment plan and pay for this a reduce amount all at once - but this money will earn during those 20 years and that is why they have to pay much less than half a million to achieve a payout plan of 1 Million dollars over the course of 20 years.

I understand how 3rd party plans work my friend, ive been involved in commercisl contract negotiations.

The point is 50$k per year equivalent is pissing in the wind in regards yo ZOS fix your servers.

BlackguardBob · March 2016

Serpace wrote: »

I kinda agree that subscription model would be best course of action but they can't do that now. After the game went B2P many players bought the game thinking they would never have to pay for a subscription and changing the model now would destroy the studio's reputation and trust.

With the advent of the Crown Store I don't think ZoS needs to go B2P. The latter was unpopular and we had the most buggy MMO out there and all we got was Craglorn by way of promised (every 6-8 weeks?) content.

The previous B2P model was dictatorial, promised much, delivered little and you couldn't play this game on a console.
So many promises broken, so many serious bugs not fixed and they had the temerity to charge monthly subs to play on a PC. Pay up every month or G2FO!

Now that common sense has broken out at ZoS, they fixed a raft of game breaking bugs, produce DLC every 3 months, and without demanding a penny. They invite us by asking us to pay and we have the option to do that or not.

The Crown Store finances this game and nobody is compelled to buy anything and yet they do if you look at the mounts players have and their costumes.

Asking for a monthly sub (ESO plus) is so much better than the previous demanding sub that went on for so long it became unacceptable and definitely not value for money.

For all the faults ESO is reported on these forums to have (and I would question some of these as being bugs), ESO is a far better game to play on all platforms than at any time in the last 2 years. It will get better I believe but only if they don't go back to B2P.

Demanding a fee every month for a non-essential thing like a video game when there are sensible alternatives that suit all parties is absurd and has no place in modern enlightened society.

Danikat · March 2016

BlackguardBob wrote: »

Serpace wrote: »

I kinda agree that subscription model would be best course of action but they can't do that now. After the game went B2P many players bought the game thinking they would never have to pay for a subscription and changing the model now would destroy the studio's reputation and trust.

With the advent of the Crown Store I don't think ZoS needs to go B2P. The latter was unpopular and we had the most buggy MMO out there and all we got was Craglorn by way of promised (every 6-8 weeks?) content.

The previous B2P model was dictatorial, promised much, delivered little and you couldn't play this game on a console.
So many promises broken, so many serious bugs not fixed and they had the temerity to charge monthly subs to play on a PC. Pay up every month or G2FO!

Now that common sense has broken out at ZoS, they fixed a raft of game breaking bugs, produce DLC every 3 months, and without demanding a penny. They invite us by asking us to pay and we have the option to do that or not.

The Crown Store finances this game and nobody is compelled to buy anything and yet they do if you look at the mounts players have and their costumes.

Asking for a monthly sub (ESO plus) is so much better than the previous demanding sub that went on for so long it became unacceptable and definitely not value for money.

For all the faults ESO is reported on these forums to have (and I would question some of these as being bugs), ESO is a far better game to play on all platforms than at any time in the last 2 years. It will get better I believe but only if they don't go back to B2P.

Demanding a fee every month for a non-essential thing like a video game when there are sensible alternatives that suit all parties is absurd and has no place in modern enlightened society.

Minor but important clarification:

B2P stands for buy-to-play and is the system we have now. You buy the game and then you can play it indefinitely, like a single player game.

The previous model was P2P or pay-to-play, where you have to keep paying to have access to the game.

(The third option is F2P or free to play where you can download the game and start playing without paying anything, but more than likely you'll need large amounts of cash shop items to actually proceed.)

Tankqull · March 2016

Thornen wrote: »

Reason they swapped to a b2p model was because sub based was not making enough profit... If you think throwing any amount of money at zos will actually make them less incompetent or actually do QA bloody testing then you need a psych evaluation.

nope because they could not warrant double fees on consoles...

maboleth · March 2016

Personally, I think this game has many things right and functioning. Quests are rarely bugged and the gameplay is smooth, unlike all Elder Scroll games I've played (and I've played them all except Arena & Daggerfall), that needed attention of the Unofficial Patches gurus. There were many very annoying, cosmetic, quest, even game breaking bugs that were left as is. If there wasn't a team of enthusiasts behind each and one of these games, ES series would be flawed. That says a big ES fan. In that segment, ESO is working just fine.

On the other hand, ESO really needs technical fixing, optimizing, polishing and more frequent patch releases. Fps fix and increase, lag decrease, 64bit debugging, audio fix etc. It's really frightening that they are currently unable to reproduce mass of the bugs the people are experiencing.

Tandor · March 2016

maboleth wrote: »

Personally, I think this game has many things right and functioning. Quests are rarely bugged and the gameplay is smooth, unlike all Elder Scroll games I've played (and I've played them all except Arena & Daggerfall), that needed attention of the Unofficial Patches gurus. There were many very annoying, cosmetic, quest, even game breaking bugs that were left as is. If there wasn't a team of enthusiasts behind each and one of these games, ES series would be flawed. That says a big ES fan. In that segment, ESO is working just fine.

On the other hand, ESO really needs technical fixing, optimizing, polishing and more frequent patch releases. Fps fix and increase, lag decrease, 64bit debugging, audio fix etc. It's really frightening that they are currently unable to reproduce mass of the bugs the people are experiencing.

It's not really that surprising given that there are a lot of players who can't reproduce them either!

The 64 bit version is of course in beta so problems are to be expected there and I have no intention of going anywhere near it unless and until there is a real purpose in doing so.

Lysette · March 2016

Tandor wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

Personally, I think this game has many things right and functioning. Quests are rarely bugged and the gameplay is smooth, unlike all Elder Scroll games I've played (and I've played them all except Arena & Daggerfall), that needed attention of the Unofficial Patches gurus. There were many very annoying, cosmetic, quest, even game breaking bugs that were left as is. If there wasn't a team of enthusiasts behind each and one of these games, ES series would be flawed. That says a big ES fan. In that segment, ESO is working just fine.

On the other hand, ESO really needs technical fixing, optimizing, polishing and more frequent patch releases. Fps fix and increase, lag decrease, 64bit debugging, audio fix etc. It's really frightening that they are currently unable to reproduce mass of the bugs the people are experiencing.

It's not really that surprising given that there are a lot of players who can't reproduce them either!

The 64 bit version is of course in beta so problems are to be expected there and I have no intention of going anywhere near it unless and until there is a real purpose in doing so.

Beside that it might not initialize correctly and limit you to 10 fps, so that you have to relog and try again, the 64-bit client runs meanwhile relatively well. I am using it now since a couple of days and once I managed to login and have normal fps (45-75 sometimes higher) it stays that way and does not have issues anymore - as far as I could experience it within those few days. It is just the initial login, which is still messy - either you end up with 10 fps already on the character selection screen or the game works fine with normal fps. At least that is for me this way - I am playing on PC EU.

JadeNaria · March 2016

Car manufacturers perform recalls when a vast amount of their vehicles are defective. They don't ask for more money to fix it as they already got their money.

Neither should Zeniwax. Yes the wax is intended.

anitajoneb17_ESO · March 2016

Skullz11c wrote: »

Charging players is a win win for everyone..

Assumptions like this is the reason why, luckily, customers don't get to decide.

.

maboleth · March 2016

Tandor wrote: »

maboleth wrote: »

Personally, I think this game has many things right and functioning. Quests are rarely bugged and the gameplay is smooth, unlike all Elder Scroll games I've played (and I've played them all except Arena & Daggerfall), that needed attention of the Unofficial Patches gurus. There were many very annoying, cosmetic, quest, even game breaking bugs that were left as is. If there wasn't a team of enthusiasts behind each and one of these games, ES series would be flawed. That says a big ES fan. In that segment, ESO is working just fine.

On the other hand, ESO really needs technical fixing, optimizing, polishing and more frequent patch releases. Fps fix and increase, lag decrease, 64bit debugging, audio fix etc. It's really frightening that they are currently unable to reproduce mass of the bugs the people are experiencing.

It's not really that surprising given that there are a lot of players who can't reproduce them either!

The 64 bit version is of course in beta so problems are to be expected there and I have no intention of going anywhere near it unless and until there is a real purpose in doing so.

While I also consider 64bit to be beta, officially (and sadly) it's not. And you're lucky if you never experienced any lag and fps spikes.

Mettaricana · March 2016

I'd pay for eso again honestly I dunno why mmos don't charge 7.99 $ like Netflix or hulu I mean those prices people don't even check their bank for 15 $ its like will this f $@" me over this payday? Hmm too much no... if they charged non standard lower fees for mmos subs would work better.

MaxwellC · March 2016

I already pay for ESO plus but I wouldn't mind continuing to pay for it if they do two things.

1. Bring back 1.6 Flames of Oblivion (Flaming spiral vortex)
2. Get rid of AoE Caps.
*Drops Mic and walks off stage*

Rosveen · March 2016

nvm

khele23eb17_ESO · March 2016

Skullz11c wrote: »

khele23eb17_ESO wrote: »

Skullz11c wrote: »

Contrary to the inflammatory posts this is sure to generate, the vast majority of you client base will pay a nominal subscription - 5, 10, even 20 dollars a month.

Some would. Vast majority wouldnt. And the very idea of having to pay a sub would put many potential players off giving the game a try.

I have to disagree. Sure some people would leave, but the business model of monthly subs is a tested and proven model that works. All they would have to do is model their subscriptions like WOW. Offer people free to try months and once they are hooked you charge them to stay. It works.

They switched to b2p beacuse the sub model didnt work. They werent making enough money on it. Most MMOs dont (WoW is an exception not a rule). And fixing things costs money. Going back to a sub model would significantly reduce their financial resources... so even less would be fixed.

Dont get me wrong, Id love the MMO industry to go back to the sub model. Not going to happen though. F2P is much more cost effective and less risky even if game quality suffers a lot.

I also feel the majority of people who leave would come back if they heard the game runs smooth and the majority of bugs are resolved.

...and balance is achieved, and theres a lot of endgame content for soloers and raiders equally satisfying for casuals and hardcores, and theres meaningful large scale PvP, and theres competitive, e-sport quality small scale PvP... and there are majestic pigs soaring in the skies over Tamriel.

xxxdcxxx wrote: »

In my opinion ZOS could have spent the money on fixing their servers instead of giving $1 Million Sweepstake https://millionreasons.elderscrollsonline.com/

They didnt give away 1 million dollars. They gave away a $4000 monthly allowance.

The_Lex · March 2016

I understand what you're saying, OP. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that ZOS is making a ton of money from Crown Store sales by console players, of which I am one.

IMO, the issue boils down to how ZOS chooses to spend its money.

Oldmanlawlor · March 2016

If mandatory sub comes in, most console players will be out.

NewBlacksmurf · March 2016

If they want to do this for PC only...thats fine but if its for consoles....just go ahead and shut down the servers.

I would strongly disagree that charging a sub would help in any way possible because for us active players, I think we all realize we are spending more without a sub than we would with a sub.

$400-$500 spent since PC launch + Console not including price of game

When I subbed, it was never more than $15/month

This idea is the absolute wrong direction if its solely based on an assumption that the game is under financed.
Edit....TODAY I just spent another $39 on crowns.....pretty sure if you add a sub you have to remove the crown store which then.....goes against all marketing that says no sub required.

This would be the best way to end something good immediately

EDIT#2
And lets be real here.....with a sub for over a year we got how many DLCs

OH yeah.....so without a sub we got how many a year later....

How many bugs were fixed prior to console launch with a sub......yeah...which is why many of us left

Now without a sub with console...bugs get fixed every month

Marktoneth3 · March 2016

some ppl always want new content

but after ZOS gave them DLC

they will complain about bugs immediately

Just let ZOS fix *** bugs first

swirve · March 2016

Oldmanlawlor wrote: »

If mandatory sub comes in, most console players will be out.

Yes some will leave and they may play when free trials occur like what happens on ff14. Even destiny does not have a sub on console and that was designed to appeal to mass casual console market.